European multicenter study of natural family planning (1989-1995): efficacy and drop-out. The European Natural Family Planning Study Groups.

{"title":"European multicenter study of natural family planning (1989-1995): efficacy and drop-out. The European Natural Family Planning Study Groups.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effectiveness studies in natural family planning (NFP) published over the past 20 years have shown a wide range of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability. This seems to be due in part to different NFP methodologies. Consequently, we decided to carry out an effectiveness study in Europe to examine one group of the most widely spread NFP methods, the symptothermal methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 1989 and 1995, 15 NFP groups from 10 European countries participated in a prospective European multicentre study. This paper reports on 1328 women aged between 19 and 45 years and willing to participate for at least 12 cycles. Two types of symptothermal methods were mainly used, the symptothermal double-check methods (1046 women, 16865 cycles of exposure, 34 unintended pregnancies) and the symptothermal single-check methods (214 women, 1495 cycles of exposure, 13 unintended pregnancies). The study was an observational study with prospectively collected data. The pregnancy rates, drop-out rates and lost-to-follow-up rates are presented separately for both subgroups according to the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the double-check methods, there was an unintended pregnancy rate of 2.61% at the end of the first 12 cycles of use (standard error or SE 0.55%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.9% (SE 0.69%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 3.1% (SE 0.62%). In the single-check group, there was a total of 13 unintended pregnancies at the end of the first 12 cycles of study participation, giving an unintended pregnancy rate of 8.5% (SE 2.52%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.0% (SE 1.76%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 23.4% (SE 4.35%). No pregnancy was observed in women over 40 years of age. Most pregnancies occurred because of deliberate unprotected intercourse in the fertile phase ('user failure').</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The symptothermal double-check methods have proved to be effective family planning methods in Europe. The low drop-out-rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction with NFP shows the good acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":76977,"journal":{"name":"Advances in contraception : the official journal of the Society for the Advancement of Contraception","volume":"15 1","pages":"69-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in contraception : the official journal of the Society for the Advancement of Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effectiveness studies in natural family planning (NFP) published over the past 20 years have shown a wide range of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability. This seems to be due in part to different NFP methodologies. Consequently, we decided to carry out an effectiveness study in Europe to examine one group of the most widely spread NFP methods, the symptothermal methods.

Methods: Between 1989 and 1995, 15 NFP groups from 10 European countries participated in a prospective European multicentre study. This paper reports on 1328 women aged between 19 and 45 years and willing to participate for at least 12 cycles. Two types of symptothermal methods were mainly used, the symptothermal double-check methods (1046 women, 16865 cycles of exposure, 34 unintended pregnancies) and the symptothermal single-check methods (214 women, 1495 cycles of exposure, 13 unintended pregnancies). The study was an observational study with prospectively collected data. The pregnancy rates, drop-out rates and lost-to-follow-up rates are presented separately for both subgroups according to the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: For the double-check methods, there was an unintended pregnancy rate of 2.61% at the end of the first 12 cycles of use (standard error or SE 0.55%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.9% (SE 0.69%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 3.1% (SE 0.62%). In the single-check group, there was a total of 13 unintended pregnancies at the end of the first 12 cycles of study participation, giving an unintended pregnancy rate of 8.5% (SE 2.52%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.0% (SE 1.76%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 23.4% (SE 4.35%). No pregnancy was observed in women over 40 years of age. Most pregnancies occurred because of deliberate unprotected intercourse in the fertile phase ('user failure').

Conclusions: The symptothermal double-check methods have proved to be effective family planning methods in Europe. The low drop-out-rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction with NFP shows the good acceptability.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲自然计划生育多中心研究(1989-1995):效果和退出。欧洲自然计划生育研究小组。
背景:过去20年发表的自然计划生育(NFP)有效性研究显示了广泛的避孕效果和可接受性。这似乎部分是由于不同的NFP方法。因此,我们决定在欧洲开展一项有效性研究,以检验一组最广泛传播的NFP方法,即对症热方法。方法:1989年至1995年间,来自10个欧洲国家的15个NFP组参与了一项前瞻性的欧洲多中心研究。本文报告了1328名年龄在19至45岁之间,愿意参加至少12个周期的女性。主要采用两种症状热法,即症状热双检法(1046例,暴露16865个周期,意外妊娠34例)和症状热单检法(214例,暴露1495个周期,意外妊娠13例)。该研究是一项前瞻性收集数据的观察性研究。根据Kaplan-Meier方法,两个亚组的妊娠率、退出率和失访率分别显示。结果:复核方法在前12个使用周期结束时的意外妊娠率为2.61%(标准误差SE 0.55%),因困难或不满意而退出率为3.9% (SE 0.69%),失访率为3.1% (SE 0.62%)。在单一检查组中,在前12个研究参与周期结束时,共有13例意外妊娠,意外妊娠率为8.5% (SE 2.52%),因困难或不满意而退出率为3.0% (SE 1.76%),失访率为23.4% (SE 4.35%)。未观察到40岁以上妇女怀孕。大多数怀孕是由于在生育期故意无保护的性交(“使用者失败”)。结论:对症热复核法在欧洲已被证明是有效的计划生育方法。对NFP有困难或不满意的低辍学率显示了良好的可接受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nota editorial Workshop papers Free communications 1 Free communications 2 Free communications 3
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1